https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227 Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an un-official review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file license.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check for naming python packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines - Provides is missing check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the unversioned python package. - Package runs this command in %install section rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Following code looks unnecessary to me as "with python3" or "without python3 is not used in spec:- %if 0%{?fedora} %bcond_without python3 %else %bcond_with python3 %endif - It would be good to Split buildrequires in seperate lines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora- reviews/1339227-fileobj/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check for naming python packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Package runs this command [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the unversioned python package. [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags The given Source0 URL doesn't exist I downloaded latest from: https://excellmedia.dl.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.46.zip and generated 0.7.34 using python setup.py sdist [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 0.7.46 is available, spec is packaging 0.7.34 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream repo doesn't contain tests [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tried f25 mockbuild on 0.7.34, it succeed [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: SourceX is a working URL. URL not working Following worked as given url redirects to https://excellmedia.dl.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.46.zip [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Invalid Source0 URL [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc25.noarch.rpm fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc25.src.rpm fileobj.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
